vironmental quality goals in stating, "Deci- 

 sions on attaining different levels of environ- 

 mental quality need to take into account the 

 benefits to be attained and the costs to be in- 

 curred. When the expected gains are large 

 relative to the costs, it is clearly in our interest 

 to move forward in cleaning up the environ- 

 ment. And such improvement should, of course, 

 continue as long as the perceived added gains 

 of attaining each higher level of environmental 

 quality exceed the expected costs." 



The use of least-cost criteria as a basis for 

 decision-making is well documented in the eco- 

 nomic literature. It is becoming more and more 

 the basis for allocating Federal resources. The 

 evaluation in this study is based on a carefully 

 selected portion of the total costs. These are 

 generally felt to be representative of crucial 

 cost factors affecting geographic location of 

 production. Efficiency of resource use is mea- 

 sured by these procedures. 



The Council of Economic Advisers has estab- 

 lished further validity to the premise that effi- 

 ciency in resource allocation is a paramount 

 public responsibility: ". . . measures to assure 

 the efficient use of our resources and productive 

 capability continue (d) to be an important fea- 

 ture of economic policy. Two conditions must 

 be met if the performance of the U.S. economy 

 is to match the rising demand placed upon it 

 . . . productive resources must be employed effi- 

 ciently in producing each goods or service, and 

 economy should produce the combination of 

 goods and services most preferred by society. 



"In many sectors of the economy the dis- 

 cipline of the competitive market is enough by 

 itself to ensure efficiency. In certain areas, 

 however, resources may not be allocated effi- 

 ciently without at least some Government inter- 

 vention. The proper nature and degree of Gov- 

 ernment intervention in such sectors is always 

 a central issue in economic policy. Changing 

 circumstances means that Government must 

 continually reexamine its role." 



This statement by the "Council of Economic 

 Advisers" is the essence of the purpose of the 

 Forest-Range Environmental Study. 



With the need of environmental quality 

 spelled out by Congress and Government agen- 

 cies and the assumption that attainment of 

 environmental quality goals must consider effi- 

 ciency, the direction for this study was estab- 

 lished. One of the study's key goals became a 

 search for the analytical technology that could 

 be used in approaching the problem of higher 

 efficiency in resource allocation. 



Inasmuch as this study recognized the com- 

 plexity of natural ecosystems and man's depen- 

 dency upon them, it was necessary to select an 

 analytical system that could approach the prob- 

 lem of dealing fully with as many of the eco- 

 system's components as would be feasible, and 



in such a manner that any part of the impor- 

 tance of each ecosystem component might influ- 

 ence a decision. Although a fully suitable ana- 

 lytical system for this high purpose does not 

 exist, and perhaps never will, the analytical 

 system used is as close to it as existing tech- 

 nology provides. 



ANALYTICAL TOOLS 



Knowledge of resources, resource capability, 

 resource limitations, demands for numerous 

 outputs, and the related investment costs in 

 land are not meaningful in themselves. They 

 need to be analyzed in a rational manner, and 

 evaluated in relation to the needs of the public 

 (fig. 38). This study sought ways in which 

 many outputs, inputs, impacts, and trade-offs 

 could be considered in a logical quantitative 

 manner. An analysis was needed that could 

 relate the output of commodities to demand 

 and at the same time consider the output and 

 demand for environmental quality. 



While the study emphasized livestock graz- 

 ing, it also considered associated resources and 

 their uses because of their interaction with 

 grazing on much of the forest-range. The study 

 focused on management strategies geared to 

 livestock production, and alternatives are pro- 

 vided only to change the supply of animal unit 

 months produced. 



A different concept is required when consid- 

 ering outputs other than grazing. The effects of 

 the strategies, applied to the production of 

 AUM's, were determined on non-grazing out- 

 puts. As the output of animal unit months is 

 changed or constrained by applying these strat- 

 egies, the effects on non-grazing outputs were 

 recorded. Thus, this study determined whether 

 a particular range management alternative had 



F— 502365 



Figure 38. — Rssource decisions may have far-reaching 

 effects. 



60 



